Is a magisterium REALLY necessary to interpret the Bible?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- In my time on RUclips, I've seen a lot of arguments for why Protestants should become Catholic. Some of them are quite good, but others ... well ... not so much. In today's video I explore the common argument that goes something like this, "Protestants don't have an infallible magisterium, therefore they can't so anyone else is wrong because it's just your opinion vs. theirs." Perhaps you've heard it too.
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon:
/ gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/...
Merch: shop.gospelsim...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook:
/ gospelsimplicity
Instagram:
/ gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a RUclips channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Austin Suggs holds a BA in Theology from Moody Bible Institute and is currently pursuing an MA in Liberal Arts with a focus in Theology and Philosophy from St. John's College, Annapolis. He has served in the local church in a number of ways, including as a full-time staff member,, teacher, church planter, and more. Today, he resides outside of Baltimore with his wife Eliza.
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
YODRSIYIVB5B6QPM
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
After reviewing the feedback on the Short I made with the same argument, I think there's an important distinction to make. In this video, I'm arguing against the idea that a magisterium is necessary in principle to determine if someone has interpreted a text rightly. I stand by that claim. However, this is not to say that a magisterium isn't incredibly useful to sort out the ensuing mess of what to do when two groups within the church think they're right. It is in fact very helpful to have some authority structure to settle the debate. However, settling the debate is a matter of administering authority, not determining truth. Again, if we say it's the latter, we're raising the bar for truth too high.
With that distinction in mind, I look forward to fruitful conversations with you all :)
This is a helpful video and makes some good distinctions! Just one contribution I have that might be helpful to the framing of the issue: I approach this issue by saying that whatever tools the Magisterium has in order to come to a conclusion are equally at our disposal as laypeople. I have the use of reason, access to the same texts (in theory), etc. This being true, I personally am not impeded from coming to all the exact same truths as the Magisterium, and in this way, I don't need the Magisterium to tell me what's true. This is confirmed by the historical fact that everything defined by the Magisterium had people that believed that doctrine prior to the definition.
But, while I don't absolutely need the Magisterium to tell me what's true, the Magisterium is necessary for "us" to know what's true, so to speak, as a community. Even though every true doctrine is accessible on my own, I don't always get the interpretation right, or if I did, it's not the case that everyone else does. And so, a priori, if Christians are supposed to have a unity of faith, a Magisterium that has the function of arbitrator - for the sake of the unity of the Church - must exist.
But how on earth would you know that they're interpreting it correctly? The bar has to be raised high, we're dealing with understanding Jesus' teachings, it's the highest bar we could possibly have, and need! edit and a p.s. As a Catholic, I looooooove your videos. God is calling us to be one, and the Eucharist will be what unites us.
This is why it's needed as well: In 1968, Christianity Today, the largest "Christian" magazine gathered the biggest and best protestants from around the world to figure out a position on abortion, this is what they said: “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.” The Catholic Magisterium stood her ground and declared it murder, and still does to this very day.
Great job, its good you took all of the time you did to come to a decision and you did so with the fact, it might have hurt your channel.
Austin, with you being either engaged or married (sorry I've lost track), what are your thoughts on the history of the unanimous Christian opposition (including among the reformers) and then its almost total embrace of contraception? One reason I place myself under the Catholic magisterium's teachings is that it has not capitulated to Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood and the world no matter how unpopular a stance it has been. Of course there's the biblical teaching against such behavior that cannot be ignored. With regard to certain lifestyles many Christians on the internet state that a behavior that was sinful 100 years ago is still sinful today. I agree.
I am catholic and I think Austin has a good point here. You don’t need the magisterium to be confident of SOME beliefs you get through the bible/church history/events in the modern era.
But the greater concern here is in regard to contentious beliefs that we don’t have a strong consensus on (e.g baptismal regeneration). In topics like these, even if you feel sure of your specific position, an intellectually humble person will still admit the possibility of intellectually deceiving himself (which is not unlikely given that there are very smart christians that would disagree with your stance on that topic)
Protestants don’t typically exegete scripture with an open mind and come to truth on their own volition, they read and interpret scripture on presuppositions that acts as an infallible source. The color of the lens they read scripture through is basically like their magisterium
That's kind of the mystery of faith, that even though we have a high degree of certainty on what we believe there are times where we must choose in the shadow of doubt to trust that which we believe to be true. Faith is after all "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not [yet] seen."
The Catholic Church relies on three authorities to discern Truth. Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, and they must not contradict each other when coming to a conclusion. How can their be any better system to have confidence of what is Truth. Not to mention Jesus promised to guide the Church into ALL Truth. You seem to simply not want the Catholic Church to be right.
I agree with the weight of your argument here - I shy away from such emphases myself - but I do see immense value in magisterial authority when it comes to the preservation of unity in the interpretation of Scripture.
P.S. I love this length of video. Long enough to make a substantial point but short enough to watch on quick breaks between other projects.
Thanks, Noah! I imagine we'd actually agree on the utility of the Magisterium as well.
@@GospelSimplicity you bet! I figured we’d largely agree - it’s a much more modest proposal than the triumphalist claims the internet loves to foment. I like modest proposals. Hope you’re doing well, man.
i disagree here. Its a strong argument. I look at the passage when Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said recieve the Holy Spirit whose sins you forgive are forgiven whose sins you retain are retained. I feel that this is authorizing the certain men to forgive on Gods behalf and is the basis for what confession is. Most protestant groups exegesis doesnt get them to the same conclusion but someone here is right and someone here is wrong. This is a critical issue that must be resolved. If God provided a mechanism to recieve his forgiveness through a particular group of individuals then to get that wrong would be a huge blunder. We need a magisterium to tell us what just happened there.
Agreed; it’s a very good argument. It seems that Austin is kind of saying that if there’s a populist and shallow presentation of an argument all over the internet, then the argument is weak at its core. In reality, not having a magisterial office necessarily results in a loss of certainty about the truth! Yes, it raises the bar for truth exceedingly high. But that is as it should be.
There is more to the magisterium than the mere exercise of administrative authority in matters of dispute. There is the guiding hand of God! We come to this understanding not just through supporting texts that are subject to interpretation, but by the same faith that burns in the hearts of all believers. Our Lord did not leave us orphan; praised be Jesus Christ!
I would say we need men who are able to show that they operate with that same spirit you referenced. I am personally utterly unconvinced the magisterium holds those men.
@@BrianLassek men are men and Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit. Apostles were men too!
@@Franco-on7yw I agree! But how does that apply the the conversation in this thread?
@@BrianLassek we trust in the presence of Holy Spirit over the men because that is Jesus’s promise.
New subscriber here. Came from Gavin Ortlund. You're charitable. God bless you ❤✝️🙏
The argument is that if the Protestant heresy was true, you would be able to solve theological controversies over the interpretation of scripture, by scripture itself.
Can you please explain how that conclusion follows?
That’s not a coherent argument, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. Protestantism is an umbrella term that refers to Christians who believe the church encompasses multiple institutions. Sola scriptura/sola apostolica is the believe that only the scriptures contain the infallible apostolic deposit. Either of these being true would not result in unanimity in interpretation. Ecclesialism has the same issue, with multiple institutions claiming to be the one true church.
Ok now apply that to EO OO and RC. None of them agree. If you think they do, explain why they don't participate in the Holy Sacraments together. Yet they all hold to having an infallible church.
Didn’t Athanasius do this during the Arian controversy?
@@bruhmingoreally? Who gets to decide what Protestants believe. I know Protestants who don’t believe your umbrella theory OR sola scriptura let alone the Trinity or whether baptism does anything. No, there probably is something to the necessity of SOME authority outside the scripture to say what must be believed. After all, the Bible alone does not purport to do that for itself, but to a Church built by Jesus with all authority
Mat28:16-20!
The problem with this argument is that the interpretation of the Bible has implications of salvation and how we are to live, it’s not like a book club parsing out what Dostovesky was trying to portray in a particular text. Infallibility is necessary for doctrine, Protestants also act as if their interpretation is infallible. Like John 6 being a spiritual meaning, that has far reaching implications if you get that text wrong
I think "semper reformanda" and the idea that Protestants think they're infallible makes for a suspect pairing. What do you mean by infallible?
@@GospelSimplicity your argument is only tenable under the false assumption that men can justify objective interpretations of scripture consistently devoid of
God's intercession. The magisterium was given infallible scripture and traditions to build infallible dogmas upon that all fallible dogmas are rooted in. All of this is justified by the Catholic assumption that God created a physical church that is guided by the Holy Spirit through the papacy to ensure Christians are not bound to sin. Protestants do not have this safeguard and are endlessly subject to potential error that they can only declare infallibly under the assumption that the Holy Spirit works through every last individual by negating their potential for self deception. There is no accountability in Protestantism due to this lack of a safeguard
@@TCZ17090 What single Christian theologian has thought that the way they arrived at their interpretation was devoid of God’s intercession?
We are all accountable to God.
@jakeracick2301 i am catholic but i dont think protestants act as if their interpretation is infallible. I am not too sure what you mean by that statement.
By saying that, do you mean that protestants hold beliefs that they utterly convinced by?
@@joshuakoh7858 many would claim that they were under the grace of God’s intercession while making the interpretation, but they wouldn’t feel comfortable to go as far as saying that would make their interpretation infallible. There’s a difference
Not necessarily. But it is necessary to prevent division, schism, and heresy when people interpret the Bible that goes against essential Dogmas.
Precisely! Again, the magisterium is VERY functionally helpful. All I want to do is distinguish administration from the ontology of truth.
@@GospelSimplicity by administration do you mean the Magisterium? Divine Revelation is ontologically true, but we need an infallible Magisterium to preserve the ontology of truth from being perverted, misinterpreted, and distorted. Peter and the Apostles were given jurisdiction to bind consciences and wills of the faithful. They were given authority by Christ to promulgate the truth as they received it by Christ. Most importantly he gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth to the end of the age. So yes, the ontology of truth needs “administration”.
The Magesterium does not prevent schism. Only human assent to truth and cooperation with the Spirit can do that. The Magesterium is something a person can either assent to, or reject, and in assenting to it, they can either rightly or wrongly interpret it. But it cannot create unity or prevent schism. Nor can it cause disunity. But there have been plenty of historical cases where, in response to a definition by the Magesterium, schisms in the Church have been created. Unity is only established and maintained when people come to agreement with each other, and external institutions etc cannot force that, nor are they required for it. Some 700 million Protestants agree on the Trinity, for example, with no Magesterium involved. And some 60-70% of Catholics don't believe in the Real Presence, but even among devout Catholics, there is rising Sedevacantism, etc.
@@fatimatriumphsu the man
@@fatimatriumphs That sounds good, I guess the protestant critique is about development of doctrine regarding the roman papacy on the early church, marian devotion, etc. Even protestants believe the Body of Christ is being sustained by the Holy Spirit (debatable interpretation of Romans 11:5, "remnant") and will always be safe in Christ, who is the Head of the Church.
Individual interpretation of Scripture is what led to the countless sects and splits upon splits within Protestantism. We know what Christ instituted and we had a unified Chuch before the sin of Pride infected those who separated and created personalized doctrines.
I think it is hard to argue for the merit of Protestantism because it is such a broad and diverse set of churches that sometimes have little in common. I don't mean that as a slight, but it is reality. When someone asks me about Protestantism, I have to ask, "which Protestant branch are you referring to?" Not having a magisterium (not even talking about an infallible magisterium, which doesn't exist in Catholic or Orthodox), would cause endless Schism and thousands of interpretations--- which has happened. If scripture can be interpreted in many different ways and we end up settling for that, we will be tiptoeing on relativism and concluding that truth really can't be found in scripture. So yes, Magisterium and Ecumenical Council is very important. Yes, you can know things without a Magisterium...but that doesn't mean it isn't needed.
You need to ask yourself why didn't the early church take your understanding of authority and live by it. Did the early church function off of sola scriptura? Why did the early church even consider any type of Magisterium? Why didn't early christians live out their faith in denominations? If they followed your take I don't see how bishops and popes resolve early church heresies.
They should’ve because of the nature of scripture as God breathed. Jesus quoted scripture that was written 1400 years before his time and quoted it as God speaking to us. And that was without a cannon or a infallible magisterium
@steventripple4765 God breathed just means life giving...it doesn't mean sole rule of infallible authority. If that was the case the the apostles were the sole rule since Jesus breathed on them.
@@MrJayb76 yeah he breathed on them and they gave us the New Testament. Nicea 2 says you have to kiss icons as part of worship or you are anathema. If you think that’s still God breathed I’m sorry for you
@steventripple4765 Luke was there? For 1500yrs theonoufstos never meant sole rule of faith. You just made up that meaning out of thin air. That's just a total accretion on your part.
@@MrJayb76 look at nicea 2, you skipped that. They said in nicea 2 if you don’t kiss icons as veneration you are anathema. Read Galatians that’s a false gospel
I'm not a Catholic, but I do believe you have misinterpreted their argument. Your example regarding CS Lewis' beliefs doesn't really help, either, because you have chosen an example on which there is no disagreement. Is it possible to interpret scripture without the magisterium? Sure. Even reliably, too, *if everyone agrees,* assuming you accept a "majority rules" type of interpretative paradigm. You can come to any interpretation you want, but the question is *on what grounds do you believe your interpretation superior to any other?* For example, we can be confident in the personal interpretation "the Bible teaches God exists" because everyone agrees with that. Therefore, I can base my confidence on the consensus of many other people.
Because it's obvious? Well, other people think differently. How do you know your judgment and reason is the superior one we should go with? If only half of the people who read scripture believed it taught the existence of God, and they had an alternate interpretation, I could no longer be as confident in my interpretation. I would have to justify why my ability to assess the evidence is superior to the abilities of half of the population.
I enjoy your content. I think in this case however you are focusing on ontology too much and neglecting epistemology. As an Orthodox Christian, not a Roman Catholic, I must disagree with your claim that the magisterium is merely about administering authority. A magisterium can also have a hand in *identifying* truth. None of us "determines" truth. But that doesn't matter, because we must have a reliable standard for the identification of truth, and personal interpretation of the text, or personal assessment of evidence in general, is not a reliable way to do that.
And just to head off any argument about "we all use persinal assessment of the evidence": Yes, we do, and that is why humans are fallible and all of our conclusions are ultimately fallible. To say though that because we are forced to rely on personal judgment in the end means we should always rely on it is silly. Should I ignore my piloting instructor and use my own personal intuition when flying a plane for the first time?
Thanks for the thoughtful comment! I think the key here is, "assuming you accept a majority rules type of interpretation." It's not clear to me how we go about doing that with ancient theological texts. My guess is that we don't actually weight all people equally here. For instance, as world population surges in the global south and Pentecostalism continues it expansive growth, it's not hard to imagine that there could soon be more Pentecostals than there were Christians in the first say, 500 years of the church. Would they form a majority then? Here the Catholic might say, "exactly! That's why we need a magisterium." But in rejecting majority rule, you once more have to establish what makes one interpretation better than the other, and simply assessing it more accurately is back on the table.
@@GospelSimplicity thanks for the response! I was not suggesting a "majority rules" model, I apologize for not making that clear. I was merely offering that as an example of a truth-identifying model someone could use as an alternative to "I can tell what the text means by how it is."
My point is that "most people came to the same conclusion I did" lends more reliability to a conclusion than "It's clear to me that I'm right."
@@EpistemicAnthony Theological epistemology always only leaves individuals with fallible personal opinion unless the grace of God infuses supernatural faith and certainty into the individual, and thats true regardless of what approach you take. P.S. 80% of Bishops were Arian at one point. "Majority rules" is not a reliable method.
I think a valid question is are we to give room for the Holy Spirit and his guiding on this? Call me a skeptic but I feel fundamentally as an authority gains greater authority and power the proclivity for corruption and abuse of that power increases, which is why I lean congregational structurally. I think when there is less of a gap between the laity and the church authorities then there is less chance of abuses of these authorities. You at least have to agree Luther was facing horrible abuses.
Yes, as a central authority -- and why the Church has been able to maintain an overall consistent theology and ecclesiology for 2000 years -- it really *is* necessary. The End.
Under a Protestant, non-magisterial ecclesiology, how are we to make sense of "the church" as being the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) who can arbitrate between disputing Christian brothers and, if not listened to, is able to regard them as to be treated like a "pagan or a tax collector" (Matthew 18:17)?
Put the inerrant Word of God on a table in a room with an illiterate 8th c. Christian peasant from the countryside. Now tell me whether an infallible magisterium is necessary or not. It absolutely matters who stands in between the scriptures and the Christian. Would a Calvinist be comfortable with a Methodist instructing our hypothetical peasant on salvation? How about a Baptist being OK with a Lutheran telling our peasant friend about regenerative baptism?
I get your point concerning individual interpretation. Now in this hypothetical situation I think you under estimate this peasant in selecting a church to attend according to their own convictions. Baring that available to them were multiple choices to select. However if only one was available I would say that I would be perfectly fine in saying that the authority of the church was sufficient short of considering itself inerrant and infalible in guiding that peasant regardless of denominational leaning. The over stepping is any organization stating infallibility. We must allow room for the convictions of our conscience.
@@Racingbro1986
"selecting a church to attend according to their own convictions"
That's the great thing about Protestantism and Sola Scriptura; no matter who you are, the Bible will always agree with what you believe. And every Christian will assure us it is not they who are interpreting the Bible. It is God and his authority who interprets. In effect making God the ultimate Yes-Man.
With all due respect, that's a pretty low view of God and Truth. My salvation and the salvation of my family are too important to leave in the hands of ANYONE who admits fallibility in matters of faith, myself included.
@@Racingbro1986I think this argument falls short at the exact moment that a Christian selects a church “according to their convictions.” A Christian, even one who has read the Bible, can be convicted of a great many things which are moderately wrong or even heretical. The Arians and the Montanists sure thought they were right about Christian theology. So did the Corinthians and the Ephesians, despite Paul writing to correct and strengthen them. Even today, various denominations have entirely contradictory theology while claiming to be “the most correct” about theology and biblical interpretation. Without an arbiter like Paul and the other apostles for the early church, Christians can and do have incorrect interpretations that ultimately influence their faith and faith life. Most Protestants still say that Catholics are damned because they interpret scripture incorrectly, conveniently add tradition to scripture, and/or practice their faith incorrectly based on incorrect interpretation. The same standard must be applied to other Protestant denominations, or it shouldn’t be used at all.
That's just infinite regress.
The peasant is still individually responsible for interpreting the Calvinist, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, or Catholic Magisterial authority. That's why you some trad cath movements that are and some that aren't in communion with Rome. Because they interpret the magesterium differently.
The magesterium still doesn't have a way to override the hypothetical peasants logical faculties, no matter how much it may wish to.
@@Doyouevenlegday first I would like to say that all those churches that you listed are Christian churches and are valid churches, as I would say that orthodox and Catholic Churches are valid churches. I think it’s evident that the Holy Spirit is active within all of them. I still don’t think any of them have infalible authority. My issue is when one organization says it’s “the one true church” . That is the ethos of Protestantism. You won’t find a Baptist or Presbyterian church saying that.
If you're in a complete dark room with no visual or sound reference and someone tells you to throw a ball into a can, it's possible for you to do it? Yes, but how would you know if you managed to do it without someone turning the lights on? It's possible to interpret the Bible to know doctrine and to be right about it but it's not possible to know if you were right in the first place.
And for every lucky person who is able to do it right, how many don’t? Without the authority, self interpretation is not scalable
@@elKarlo exactly.
It seems you haven't read 1 Corinthians 2 recently..... according to a Paul we can know the deep things of God. If we were in your dark soundness room you'd be right, but we are not.... So....
If your personal Christianity is comparable to a dark soundness room then you are not in the historic faith.
@@BrianLassek Or maybe you should read it better. Paul does not say that they should figure things out for themselves by trying hard to discern it but to follow what was preached by him, because what he preached doesn't come from the wisdom of men but from the Spirit of God. This exactly how the Church works. The Church and its ministries teaches guided by the Holy Spirit and that's how we can be assured of what we interpret from divine revelation. Again, if you read what I said, I'm not saying it's impossible for us to know something wich is revealed by the Spirit but we can't be sure of it without the Church
@ghostapostle7225 I love your post, and I am not joking. I have literally written/spoken almost those exact words in other places. I apologize for how long this post became, but I love finding common ground and get a little excited to maybe make progress bridging our traditions differences.
I agree with what you wrote about the need for the church whole heartedly. Where we may differ is about the nature of church.
I believe that 3 things are needed for a healthy Christian life. 1) the body of Christ 2) the indewelling Holy spirit 3) the scriptures.
Please allow me to focus on the church.
First semantics. What is the church? The early church was a network of communities, not a hierarchy. Almost every time the word "church" appears in English bibles it is ekklesia aka "the gathering" or "congregation", it was the people at a place. When read with this in mind those scriptures become about a real community, not a "visable church" that spans the world through bishops and formal doctrines ect.
Earlier I stated that we need 1) the body of Christ 2) the Holy spirit and 3) the scriptures. These 3 will not contradict each other, but the harmony between them attests to God preserving his word and church. "I" don't get to just decide anything. With the Holy spirit I submit my understanding to: The body of Christ (when gathered as his church) who are filled with the Holy spirit (as shown with evidence) and demonstrating the attributes of Jesus's example. Not just anyone with a stage, a book, a RUclips channel ect, but not excluding those called to be scholars, pastors, priests, theologians, archeologist, and gifted congregants. And without the three together, including the Holy spirit, we are guaranteed to get it wrong. We test all things.
We cannot just ignore the obvious work of God within the protestant tradition (I will also stand with you against its abuses and charlatans). If the body of Christ exists outside of the Catholic and Orthodox communions then each lacks "the fullness of the Church".
According to the Orthodox/Catholic traditions the reason they are right is because of the Holy spirit speaking through them is equal to scripture. So you have two burdens of proof. 1) that there is evidence to support the claim that your leadership is filled with the Holy spirit. 2) That they are the only ones with the indwelling Spirit that gives their words authority.
If the same verifiable qualities that would validate the succession of bishops are either a) not found in the bishops holding a traditional office and/or b) found in those outside the Catholic / Orthodox communions then the claim to being Gods only true Church/gathering falls apart.
(My lunch break is now over, I apologize for any typos my thumbs didn't catch....)
Allie Beth Stuckey posted a video about how the SBC is voting on women pastors and teaching on IVF. I recommend watching that video. It ties somewhat into this argument and why we need a magisterium.
In Matthew 7:24-27, our Lord explicitly says, build on rock and not on sand. Evangelicals will eventually cave. Up to the 1930’s all the mainline churches were against contraception and then the teaching changed. These issues are only a matter of time.
I say this because there is no church polity. Not even an organization as big as the SBC can bind its members and churches morally and doctrinally.
Our Lord sheds light on this issue in Matthew 18,
“If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
However, in the case of excommunication, this member can just go down the road to a Baptist church that does espouse the beliefs they’re clinging to. If not a Baptist church, then they may become Methodist, or Anglican or non denominational. Ultimately the job of the church is to bind consciences. That is what it means to build on rock. Scripture is the house, the church is the rock. If the church is made of sand and cannot bind, the logical conclusion is Judges 21:25,
“In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.”
Again, our Lord sheds clear light on this in Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Before his bitter and most sorrowful passion our Lord prayed for unity, John 17:20-21,
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”
There will never be unity if each man can take the house of scripture and build it on the sand of himself. It is not the responsibility of each believer, it is the responsibility of the church or else the church that believer belongs to will have failed him. Evangelicals will fail, it’s only a matter of time.
“And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”
So, I think the strong-form argument, as you present it here, really is weak. But let's get behind the pop argument. I'd make a few points.
First, there are absolutely conclusions you can draw from the Bible, as a text, which don't admit to alternative interpretations and which don't require a magisterium to elucidate. I don't think any thoughtful Catholic would disagree.
Second, the Bible is nonetheless not just any text and the principles we'd use to derive a relatively unambiguous meaning from other texts are very different. Most notably, the Bible is not a text but 73 texts, or 66, or 75 with, even if you take traditional authorship as read, at least 35 different human authors. When I read even the most complicated novel, say, Finnegans Wake, I can assume a continuity of style, lexicon, and thought pattern that I can't assume with the Bible, even under the strictest definition of inerrancy. Does James mean the same thing by justification as Paul? Who's to say? Like, it's just manifestly obvious that you could come to the conclusion that definitive interpretations of the Bible are hard to reach without at all undermining the general principle that other individual texts have an accessible meaning.
Third, the broader question is, can you get to Orthodoxy by approaching the Bible as a text? By that I don't mean, "is Orthodoxy consonant with the text" but "is Orthodoxy mandated by the text". Could someone, in good faith, read the Bible and conclude that, say, Jesus is Lord indeed, but a lesser light than the Father. Is that an interpretation you can exclude from the text alone and without appealing to the accumulated weight and outworking of the first several centuries of Christian tradition? Would a person who'd never heard of Christianity be able to read the text, with the aid of pre-Christian source materials as context, and come to the view of the Godhead you have by Chalcedon? If you performed that experiment on 100 people, would that view be the overwhelming majority? A bare majority? Would it even be a plurality?
Which brings us to the real point: yes, you can say a fair number of things, definitively, about the Bible without an authoritative interpreter, but you can't say nearly as much as Christians have traditionally wanted to say. You can exclude many things but you can't exclude enough things. And thus it's no surprise that, as Christianity has increasingly disdained tradition and the democracy of the dead, Orthodoxy has gotten thinner on the ground.
This is the point that kept me Protestant, though a different kind of Protestant than I was before I studied church history and theology. You can't get away from private judgment and interpreting people and texts. From my perspective and with all respect to my Catholic friends, I find that adding in the Councils, canons, encyclicals, traditions (is it Sacred or small "t" tradition) adds another layer onto the Bible which also needs interpreting. I've often said Protestants disagree over Scriptural interpretation but Catholics and Orthodox disagree over not just how to interpret the Bible but also how to interpret the Councils, popes and their broader tradition. There are different Catholic theologians who disagree over how many times the Pope spoke infallibly, or whether or not Vatican Two taught any binding doctrine (since anathema was never used) or whether is was all merely discipline changes which could be undone (this is a big difference between Trad Cats and Novus Ordo Catholics). You get the point. The RCC apologists have a real blind spot on this issue in my view, and once I realized it I couldn't unsee it.
The Magisterium isn't necessary in a Metaphysical sense
But given that scripture already says that there are essentials in it that are easy to misinterpret, then this means the Magisterium is practically necessary
And you don't need scripture to tell you this
Just look at the state of protestantism
Its the world's most divided religion and its not even a competition.
Protestantism isn't a religion though. At least be fair and pick one denomination, or the same argument could be used against catholicism for the great schism.
And lets definitely never ever take a look at the state of Catholic parishes and the abuses of Novus Ordo, those don't exist at all, and Catholicism is in complete unity.
Completely fair! Again, this video is concerned with the first sentence, not the second.
@@etheretherether
The reason why I don't do so is because Protestants today no longer hold to denominational exclusivism
The vast majority of protestants believe that the true Church is at the very least spread across all protestant denominations and there are some who believe it is even spread out to Apostolic Churches (Catholic and Orthodox)
Great points and questions.
The Magisterium declaring certain interpretations to be truth really only do so if those are integral to the Faith and/or there's a need to clarify as differing interpretations could lead to heresy or schism and compromise Church unity. So as a Catholic, I would trust my own interpretation of Scripture unless it deviates from the Magisterium.
This is similar to why you still need the Supreme Court to interpret and clarify the laws. They don't opine on every single law, but only of there is a major disagreement that could affect a large part of the population. The Supreme Court having the authority and final say avoids free-for-all interpretation of laws.
How did the apostles in the Church in the Book of Acts establish themselves as ones who could interpret scripture? In Acts 2 when Peter said "This is that which is spoken of by the Prophet Joel" how did he show that his interpretation of Joel was to be listened to? In Galatians, how did the Apostle Paul show that his interpretation of the Law of Moses was correct? If you were in the Church in the Book of Acts, why would you have listened to the interpretation of scripture by the apostles? If they didn't have church history to refer to, as the Church was new, what would have been you reason for listening to them?
@GospelSimplicity: Hey, Austin! I like this video, and am happy you made it. It's clear that no _Magisterial intervention_ is required to adjudicate the meaning of "Jesus wept." 🤣 Whenever a Catholic expresses why he thinks Jesus instituted a judicial authority in the Church, if that Catholic claims we can't know _whether Jesus wept_ without a Magisterium, he's making a _bad argument._ THAT SAID, have you ever considered the analogy to Intellectual Property Law? For example, the question of "Who owns the copyright to Stairway To Heaven?" ...or, who owns the "Golden Arches" as a Trademark?
Here's what I mean: In Christianity there are some topics where the Bible is formally sufficient for any honest observer to have certainty (e.g. "Jesus wept"). There are also topics where the teaching is _initially_ unclear, but comparing the treatment in one book with another can bring clarity (e.g., were James and Joses sons of Jesus' mother? No, they were sons of the wife of Clopas).
Beyond these, there are many other topics where the Bible seems to provide _insufficient_ clarity for confidence, but various competing Christian "camps" _claim_ (for whatever reason, but polemical bias is surely involved) that it _is_ sufficiently clear (e.g. pedobaptism vs. credobaptism). And there are still other topics where everybody agrees the Bible is saying _something_ which the _original hearers/readers_ probably understood, but about which we have no certainty. (Who is the Man of Lawlessness, and what is restraining him?)
Right there, we have _four_ categories of topics:
1. sufficient clarity for certainty;
2. low-level ambiguity resolved by cross-reference to parallel texts;
3. medium-level ambiguity producing differences-of-opinion even though various persons _claim_ certainty with inadequately-founded confidence;
4. high-level ambiguity where people can speculate, but every honest person either admits he's speculating, or is using extra-textual data because the _text_ is underdetermined.
But I don't think we can stop at just those _four_ categories.
Surely we also need a category for things like "Which books should be in the canon-of-Scripture?" and "How are Christians even _supposed_ to use Scripture? To reconstruct the faith's dogmas from whole cloth, without reference to history? Or as a source for devotional and typological contemplation? Or both? Or something else?" and "What does it even _mean_ for a book to be inside the canon? Does that merely mean it should be publicly read aloud in the liturgy (which seemingly was the main concern of the initial canonization)? Does it mean that an individual's interpretation of Passage X automatically provides justification for dissension if it comes into conflict with some other individual's interpretation of the same passage?" and "What does it even mean for a text to be _theopneustos?_ Does it guarantee _inerrancy_ to incidental historical and scientific claims? Or only to the original sacred author's main topic? Or only to things pertaining to salvation?" ...etc., etc., etc.
And if that's the _fifth_ category, then surely there's also a sixth: "What metaphysical, epistemic, and ethical underpinnings should be assumed when reading the text? Should we think that Natural Law is a valid way of deriving ethical conclusions -- that when we're "plundering the Egyptians" for the best of their golden ideas, we can include Aristotle in our synthesis -- or should we take an approach rejecting everything that doesn't explicitly derive from the traditions of the Hebrews ("What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" or Luther's, "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things!") ...?
...aaaand there may be still more categories than those.
BUT, in the midst of all this, keep in mind:
1. Christianity is what it is, and was what it was, long before you and I were a couple of twinkles in our dads' eyes, respectively;
2. Amid all the things we are free to speculate about (e.g. who restrains the Man of Lawlessness) there is still something called the Required Content of the Christian Religion (RCCR): The doctrines and rites and morals that everybody ought to know and agree upon; and,
3. Whatever this "required content" is, it was revealed by God, in order that the People of God would benefit from it, and carry it to the world in His name. So, He _meant_ for it to be knowable and recognizable.
And that's where an analogy to Intellectual Property comes into play, doesn't it?
Did you ever see the movie "Coming to America" with Eddie Murphy? There's a guy who runs "McDougal's," clearly a rip-off of McDonald's, same colors and everything. Trademark laws exist so that the consumer can _recognize and know_ which commercial entity he's doing business with. That way, the consumer can have a well-principled confidence he's getting a "Big Mac" and not a "Big Mick." 😁🍔
To make this possible, we have a _court system_ which deals with Trademark infringement, right? And in a Trademark lawsuit against X, if the court finds _against_ X, it's an official declaration that, "You, sir, are X, but you were pretending to be Y. But you're not Y, you're X, and you don't have any right to claim that you're Y."
Now, it's clear that Christianity has a problem: Lots of different folks _claim_ to be presenting us the RCCR -- that _required content of the Christian religion -- but since they contain irreconcilable differences on some points, they _can't_ all be doing so.
We _wish_ we could write this problem off as trivial by saying, "Well, it's only on unimportant topics. We all agree on the important stuff..." but that's clearly not the case. Morals are at play; doctrines of God are at play; various things related to salvation are at play. There's no escape by _that_ route!
We desperately need the RCCR, and not some near-beer substitute. We need to "know the truth" so that the truth will "set us free," right?
But that leads inescapably to an Epistemic Problem: How can we _know_ that we have located the RCCR, instead of something slightly-wrong but sufficiently-similar to fool us? If we _claim_ that we "know," how can we be sure that our "knowledge" isn't just a subjective _feeling_ of certainty which, while sincere, is inadequately-founded, derived from the quirks of our personal history instead of a truly _principled_ basis for confidence?
It appears that this _mirrors_ the problem with Trademark violations.
And the only practical way to deal with _that_ problem was for society to have a Judicial Authority with the ability to _resolve_ the dispute, _with finality._
(By, "with finality," I mean: People can't just bring up the case again in different courts, over-and-over, hoping to re-try the case in different venues, venue-shopping for their preferred outcome. There's an appeals process, but it ultimately terminates _somewhere._ At some point the matter becomes "settled.")
Is there any other way to resolve such disputes, _other than_ a Judicial Authority that, after however many appeals, can rule with finality?
What other way?
And, if anyone _proposes_ some other way, let me ask this about his proposal: Can you show me _that_ method being used to resolve Christian disputes, in every century, from today all the way back to the Ascension of the Lord? ...and, if you think the Bible is especially important, can you make me any argument that _that_ method (whatever it is) was _instituted_ by the Lord, somewhere in the texts of the Bible?
Austin, I think that the analogy to Intellectual Property law is at least _revealing,_ even if it's not perfect.
What do you think?
Best to you and yours,
CW
I am catholic and I think Austin has a good point here. You don’t need the magisterium to be confident of SOME beliefs you get through the bible/church history/events in the modern era.
But the greater concern here is in regard to contentious beliefs that we don’t have a strong consensus on (e.g baptismal regeneration). In topics like these, even if you feel sure of your specific position, an intellectually humble person will still admit the possibility of intellectually deceiving himself (which is not unlikely given that there are very smart christians that would disagree with your stance on that topic)
Thus, in contentious and important topics like these, for the sake of caution, we CANNOT know the truth without an infallible magisterium
You are right that truth is an independent objective reality that doesn't require a magisterium to exist. But objective truth isn't unifying if in practice fallen man can't determine what it is.
The examples you give involve texts that are perspicuous (like whether CS Lewis believed in Hell). And surely the Bible is perspicuous on many things, but Protestants seem to insist on its perspicuity in all things or at least the most important ones ("the main things are the plain things").
But I don't need a magisterium to determine that is not true. Plainly, intractable interpretive issues have persisted for hundreds of years among good faith, educated adherents of sola scriptura working as hard as they can to resolve them. And not on obscure issues of primarily theological interest, like whether Christ had one or two wills, but on cores issues of the gospel, like whether and how salvation can be lost (and if yes, what to do to get it back).
This is precisely the level on which I think the conversation needs to be had. It's a question of function, not of truth. I have no problem with the argument that says, "Christ wants the Church to be united, a magisterium is the most expedient way to get there." What I don't like seeing is people overreach in their arguments to say that we can't know things without a magisterium because that confuses epistemology and administration.
@GospelSimplicity -- I broadly agree. But it does seem that, at least as to some truths, there is an actual epistemological issue where fallen man can't determine objective truth without a magisterium. And for that reason, I would say a magisterium is not just "expedient," but also necessary.
To use a bad, flawed analogy, it seems (for some issues) like the Bible is an encrypted message and the Holy Spirit is the decryption key. God gave us both, and you are never going to get to the truth he is revealing if you insist on using only one.
@GospelSimplicity -- I broadly agree. But I think it goes beyond administrative and becomes epistimological. It seems that there are some objective truths that, in a fallen world, fallen man is not able to recognize as objective truth without the aid of a magisterium. So it is not just "expedient," but necessary.
Or to use a bad, flawed analogy: at least as to some objective truths, the Bible is an encrypted message and the Holy Spirit is the decryption key. God gave us both, and we need to use both to access the truth he has revealed.
@@GospelSimplicity
It's not just a matter of function if Christ instituted it to guard the deposit of faith and faithfully expound on it. It then falls in the category of truth and is not mere pragmatism. I agree that people go a little too far in that they take a completely epistemic nihilistic position but to say that this doesn't fall in the category of truth is stretching too far as well. The question then becomes, did Christ institute the magisterium to do these things or not? So, for me it's both/and of this works and it's true versus an either/or approach of ok this might work but that doesn't mean it's true. No disrespect I usually like your takes but this one I can't get on board with.
Exactly. Nobody acts like they cant know anything without an infallible magisterium. We do it all the time, especially Catholic converts who have to read and interpret all sorts of texts (for themselves) in order to determine whether Rome is the true church, all without a magisterium doing it for them. I also see a distinction between truth and authority. Authority is what arbitrates between parties. But authority doesn't necessarily entail truth.
My biggest issue is that the convenience of a magisterium cannot come at the cost of violating the word of God (which is what you get with Rome).
The distinction between authority and truth is a really good one here. Well said
Absolutely it is. Not so much for a novice, but it becomes necessary to avoid disobedience (our first sin). And certainly for preserving the faith through time and history. Can someone outside the Catholic church interpret the bible, of course! But how do you know if it's correct? Protestants widely differ on this, for instance, they interpret the Eucharist incorrectly. Nothing is clearer than that. That doesn't mean God's grace isn't present in Protestants, but grace is everywhere and available to anyone, but if it doesn't bring you to the Body of Christ, then only God knows what happens, and it will be by grace and mercy that you are saved. However, we have assurance in Christ in the Eucharist. John 6:53 "Unless you eat of my Body and drink of my Blood, you have no life in you."
Well the Bible doesn’t deny nestorianism or the idea that Jesus has one will or two wills or one vs two natures
The Bible doesn’t comment on the simplicity vs complexity of God
One of the most difficult things about being Protestant, that I think is really good, is that you need to do the hermeneutical work. You have your interpretation and I have mine, but that doesn't mean that our interpretations are equally valid. Good hermeneutical practices, a solid biblical theology, knowledge of the languages, and a suspicion of our own bias all help reveal in the majourity of cases that one interpretation is supreme. Having a magisterium certainly makes it simpler by settling the debate, but for the honest truth seeker it leaves a lot to be desired because those nuances and hermeneutical particulars seem to just get squashed under a desperation for a settled argument. It's frustrating to see how often people pretend like hermeneutics isn't a real science that can uncover real truth and boil it down to "your interpretation vs my interpretation".
Also, the magisterium doesn't exactly solve this issue since believing that the magisterium has the authority it claims to have is a matter of personal interpretation. You cannot submit to the magisterium until you have personally come to an interpretation of Scripture that necessitates it.
Have you studied the way the Church comes to its interpretations?
Have you considered the words of Saint Athanasius the Great who says in his book On the Incarnation that it is impossible for one to understand the writers of the holy scriptures without first imitating their way of life? Do you have an apostolic way of life? Might having different life experiences change the way you understand the words being used in the Bible? I can tell you that after joining the Orthodox Church and following the teachings and traditions of the Church and immersing myself in her way of life, that when I read the scriptures now I see entirely new meanings that I was completely blind to despite my many years of reading commentaries, going to bible college, doing biblical word studies, memorizing chapters of the Bible, and listening to countless sermons. It wasn't merely a matter of changing doctrinal beliefs that did this. After my first couple years in the Orthodox Church I still would read the Bible and see what I had always read and saw. Rather it took familiarizing myself with a new way of life and slowly building up new experiences that I started to see new things in the Scriptures as if they were plain as day. Of course there is always new things to learn when reading the sacred scriptures, but how you understand them, really is dependent in significant part on how much your experiences overlap with that of the authors. Orthodoxy teaches you how to live a life that resembles the way the apostles and the early Christians lived and worshipped.
Why is that a good thing? Jesus elevated fisher men to the highest ranks of his church. Protestantism has this effect of segregating the church by intellect. Someone could end up as a heretic merely by virtue of not having good reading comprehension. Whereas the Magesterium allows that individual to be corrected by his priest or Bishop without any risk of being a heretic
The real question is did Christ found a visible Church with binding teaching authority
Hey, I found your argument very valid in criticizing an inflated infallible magisterium. As a Catholic I think so too that saying we just need a authoritative magisterium is short sighted. The magisterium itself needs to give an argumentation for its decisions and it also cannot teach something that’s really in contradiction to church tradition or scripture. Furthermore many things the magisterium decides aren’t infallible truth claims. There are some things the magisterium teaches that are indeed viewed as infallible like the divinity of Jesus or other dogmas but there’s a hierarchy of truth claims as well. I also think that theology is very important and that we indeed can find knowledge within texts, different interpretations aren’t equally valid. Still, we see a pattern in Protestantism where groups divide over a theological difference where both sides bring up good and sound arguments. The Bible is a book out of many books that portray different and partly contradicting views themselves. I think a magisterium then is necessary practically in order to create unity. It’s like if there’s a discussion for years over a certain thing but you never make a decision - that’s not good, there needs to be a point where someone makes a decision. And another aspect is important too: communion. If we decide in communion „this is the way“ we can trust it way more than if it’s just ourselves alone.
This was a great video, as always Austin.
Weighing in on the question of "knowing" and "believing" as it pertains to the magesterial authority in question: I don't think that any Catholic tradition worth its money would ever say that any interpretation of the faith constitutes a "knowing." Rather, it is the essence of faith that it is a believing given to us by grace (and for the Catholic, through those holy institutions such as Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Magisterium). As such, the question of infallibility takes on a different sort of role than one which establishes factual interpretation; rather the magisterial authority of the church would establish certainty (or credibility -- "believability") of some artifact of faith.
Secondly, I think the argument that premises that "there [ought] exist some magisterium" is fraught with misunderstandings about what the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of "magisterium" is, and that is the teaching authority of the church and not some actual body within the church that teaches. It is, in theory, the sacred authority and duty of the church to hand down and interpret tradition (of which scripture is part).
Those two things being the case; the Sacred Magisterium holds the important and necessary role of authorizing certain and creditble (and not factual) claims about matters of faith. The idea that protestant bodies don't have a "magisterium" I think fundamentally misunderstands the idea of magisterium, and fails to recognize that insofar as protestants believe themselves to be inheritors of the apostolic faith, "preaching the Gospel" is necessarily an exercise of the magisterium; i.e. the sacred authority and duty of the church to teach and pass on the Gospel message, and to interpret it via the tradition which was handed to them. Those ministers who exercise this authority are not "the magisterium" but exercise magisterial authority. As such, for Catholics, that authority is vested in and properly exercised by the bishops and pope and varying levels, ordinary and extraordinary. For protestants, I imagine that authority is vested in those who are "ordained" (or commissioned, etc.) to preach and minister the Word. (Note: I think it's also very important to remember that the magisterial infallibility regarding dogma only pertains to the authority of the pope to establish matters of faith in extraordinary and very constrained circumstances, and that any other concept of magisterial infallibility is reserved for ecumenical councils, whereby infallibility isn't dogmatic, but rather signals that any teaching therein established is free from error or sin.) In sum, I don't think it is possible to have any authentic ecclesiology without a necessary magisterium, regardless of how it is exercised on the ground, and that for MOST cases, infallibility is not necessary for the interpretation of scripture.
What if the critique could be simplified? Shedding of the "infallibility" for a second, what would you say if someone argued, "Protestantism is wrong because there is no one who has the right to judge in matters of controversy (especially when the answer cannot be easily discerned). Since you could not settle the dispute for all, this renders the system practically unworkable."
I would say the first argument here is not sound: "Protestantism is wrong because there is no one who has the right to judge in matters of controversy (especially when the answer cannot be easily discerned)."
In short, having someone to arbitrate controversy does not have any bearing on whether someone is right or not. I think this makes a fundamental error as it mistakes the act of declaring someone right with them actually being right. To do so takes away the objectivity of truth, which I think is a high price to pay. The objectivity of truth means that there simply is a right answer, whether anyone recognizes it or not.
As for the second argument, "Since you could not settle the dispute for all, this renders the system practically unworkable" I would just say it's a different issue (i.e., whether or not the system is functional), because, again, whether something is functional is a separate (albeit important) question from whether it's true.
Came for the Orioles hat, stayed for the theological takes. Let’s go O’s!
"As Delivered By Angels" episode on the Lord of Spirits is a really good take on this.
I want to note a couple things for the Catholic viewers on this:
1) Extending the infallibility of scripture to an infallible authority does not get us out of the problem of infinite egress. At the end of the day, a person still has to interpret the abstraction of words. Not all interpretations of Vatican II are the same, this is way there are Trad Catholic movements that have left communion with Rome, and ones that have stayed in communion with Rome.
2) A gentle reminder that scripture was not canonized in Nicaea I, which seems to be a common misconception among both Catholics and Protestants. Yes, there where descriptions of what scripture contained early on, but the first magisterial. The first prescriptive (not descriptive), magisterial, canon of books was in the Council of Trent in 1546.
The infinite regress arg needs to be retired by Protestants just as the one Austin critiques here by RCs does. It assumes no iterative clarity or terminus can be reached in understanding. If Joe reads a difficult text by himself while Bob also reads it with the author beside him offering feedback and answers, Bob obviously has advantage in confirming understanding, even as he still has to interpret the authors clarifications.
Many scholars believe the oldest Christian creed is 1 Cornithians 15:3-4 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures". No Magesterium needed for comprehension.
Christ was constantly beefing with the Pharisees over their inflation of tradition. Meanwhile the Bereans were lauded for their love of scripture. I wonder if the Bereans were known as the "me and muh bible" crowd..
@evelynkerubo7398 Many scholars also believe that he learned this creed while in Jerusalem. He met with Peter amongst others while he was there. It's impossible to know the exact source as it may have been a compendium of sources. He may have received it from a church or an individual. A purveyor of the gospel doesn't need to be an infallible source or the great commission on an individual basis is nullified.
@gospelSimplicity I am thankful for the amount of time you research these topics. It’s obvious these are not built upon knee jerk sensational opinions. You keep doing what you’re doing. I don’t agree, but that’s my right.
Thanks, Brandon!
This is absolutely true, Austin. Both your criticisms that magisterial data is more perspicious than equivalent biblical data and that we need infallible data to know anything are spot on
Thanks! Nice work with your channel, btw.
Protestants must admit they can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY " or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, or who the rock is in Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Hmm. Seeing how there are thousands of non catholic denominations...yes
This argument has been refuted by Catholics like Trent Horn.
There is the full spectrum in eschatology held by Roman Catholics as well.
@@soteriology400 oh cmon now. The basics are all nailed down in the RCC.
@@nosuchthing8lol
@@soteriology400There’s a spectrum that all still fall in life with dogma discerned by the Church authority. Hence why we can determine what’s valid or not. This is also why we didn’t split into a billion sects.
I think the big question comes down to this: Is the unity of faith really important or not? If the answer is yes; then a Magisterium is necessary. If the unity of faith is just a good thing that would be great to have but not a primordial thing, then the Magesterium might be useful but not that important
Regarding the interpretation of the Bible, I love the introduction of The Meaning of Icons, by Vladimir Lossky, where he talks about the relationship of Tradition and interpretation. I don't know if you already read that, the pdf is available in scribd.
Yes. Without a magisterium, anyone can interpret Scripture to his or her choosing hence Protestants and their thousands of denominations.
I would love your feedback on this argument I thought of recently, it's a bit deeper but similar to the topic: let's assume the low church protestant view of an invisible body of believers is true. If so how do we know what scripture is? It is identified by the people of God. Who are the people of God? They are the ones who follow scripture. But then those terms are circular and therefore meaningless. You would require a visible, delineated body of believers to break that circularity. I don't know that that gets us to an infallible magisterium but it would be a short hop from there imo.
I think the CS Lewis analogy falls short. Debating whether Paul taught about justification is one thing. Determining what the proper interpretation of his teaching on justification is another. Further, Arius didn’t argue about the existence of Jesus, he argued about how to understand Jesus.
Great video, thanks! I’m a Catholic seminarian myself and I agree we should stop making arguments for the Magisterium as if it were a *logical* necessity in order to have any knowledge. I think it’s much more appropriate to make an argument from *fittingness.* The word Magister simply means teacher. When we go into the classroom as school kids, it’s most effective to have both textbooks and a living teacher to help us. Not equating the Bible with a mere textbook, it’s just an analogy. Someone could learn directly from a textbook, but most people would probably attest to the value of having living teachers to explain the various subjects to us as kids! Similarly, Jesus tells the Apostles to “go and teach all nations” - He didn’t merely tell them to go and pass out texts (Biblical or otherwise). And of course as you know, there are an array of topics that simply are not mentioned directly in the Bible, even though we can decipher Biblical principles (think of IVF or artificial intelligence or something). It’s very helpful to have a teacher to show us how to apply Biblical principles to these issues which frankly, are simply just not covered directly in the Bible. Jesus said to the Apostles “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. I will send my Spirit to lead you into all Truth.”
Great comment! I'd fully agree, the argument should come from fittingness/practicality, not a logical necessity. I have no problems at all with the former. I just think the latter is not sound. That was really the only thing I was trying to convey in this video
I was raised Catholic, and I've been Protestant since 1981. I would have more confidence in an infallible Magisterium were it not the source, in Roman Catholicism, of so many doctrines having no basis at all in Scriptures, and some arguably are opposed to the clear testimony of the Scriptures. I understand the argument for an authoritative teaching body on the earth to guide all Christians in understanding the Scriptures. But the Magisterium's reliance on extra-biblical sources or even, at times, no source at all, undercuts both its authority and its motivation -- which honestly appears more focused on advancing Roman Catholicism than on advancing the clearly taught fundamentals of the faith from the Scriptures. While I hold to Sola Scriptura, it isn't a necessary backdrop for criticism of the Magisterium. Extra- biblical sources are a valued context, but must only be considered if they reasonably concur with the Bible. Infallible teachings like the Assumption of Mary really indict the Magisterium, given that nothing in Scripture even hints at such a thing. The Church does need a strong teaching presence, and I'm sadly aware of how it's lacking, but an infallible Magisterium that appears devoted to one branch of the faith rather than to the Scriptures in the service of the faith isn't working.
One thing that I find odd for the Christian mind and heart at all is that any would devote the bulk of their "giving a reason for the hope" time to standing up for their church against other Christians-Catholic apologists or Protestant critics-instead of working in that same vein to evangelize the lost or de-churched.
Yes, sure it is. Protestants have opinions about what they think is true, imagine each person with a different opinion, it's a complete confusion.
The main misunderstanding here is thinking that the Catholic Church created a magisterium and called it infallible so that they could know exactly what the Bible means, because in absence of such an infallible magisterium there would be no way for us to know how to interpret the Bible.
This is simply a caricature.
The role of the magisterium is not to interpret texts that otherwise nobody could understand.
The magisterium (the council of the apostles and elders) was set up by Christ himself, to whom he gave the power of binding and loosing and on whom he breathed the Holy Spirit so that they could be led in all truth.
The role of the magisterium is to preserve the living faith of the apostles and protect the Church from heresy. The magisterium is not a super powerful scholar that does perfect exegesis.
The whole issue at stake here is always the principle of sola scriptura. The gospel was not meant to be exegetically derived from the Bible, as Protestant believe. The gospel was meant to be preserved and proclaimed by the living Church.
In conclusion, if you come up with your own interpretation of the Bible that is opposed to the teachings of the magisterium, you can be sure you are wrong, not because the magisterium does better exegesis than you do, but because the magisterium is the custodian of the fullness of the faith since the time of the apostles.
This is kind of a lame argument; you're comparing unlike things. The fruits of not having a magisterium are all around you.
Please bring in Michael Lofton he is working for Catholic Answers and is giving out courses on understanding Magisterium of Catholic Church. Jimmy Akin has a Book too 'Teaching with Authority' on Magisterium.
You always have insightful videos but I think this one misses the mark a bit. It is not that without a magesterium an individual cannot interpret texts accurately or that a person cannot very often say who is right and who is wrong when there is a divergent interpretation. Rather, as I see it, the magesterium has a twofold function. One is to keep the Church from erring in a matter of faith or morals. Not that we can't know the correct answer without it but that it guarantees it. One can get a test question correct without looking at the answer key, but having the answer key guarantees it to be accurate. The other function, as I see it, is to allow the Church to draw the correct implications from sacred texts when it is not clear from the text. The Trinity would be an example of this, as are many modern social issues. I would also add that in the case of teachings of the Church a very high level of certainty is indeed needed that is not needed in everyday life because the implications are so high. As an example, it is a tragedy that on so many important social issues of the day (abortion, immigration, environment, euthanasia just to name a few) that different Christian groups come to such divergent conclusions such that there appears to be no correct answer at all. Imagine is the Church spoke with one accord instead.
Interesting point, though I personally don’t use the argument the way you put it. You are correct, there are things we can know from scripture for certain. However, the strength of the magisterium is similar to having an umpire at a Baseball game. It’s a third party useful for settling disputes when both sides won’t budge on their views. If we are not subjected to an authority, then players can do whatever they want if they have sufficient support. The reformers were aided by the royalty of the day and thus were protected by an outside force from the correction of the Church. We see this pattern repeated again and again. It’s not that all interpretations are valid/ equally possible, but rather that one man vs one man lacks an arbiter.
Magisterium is not only necessary as Bible interpreter but also to clarify the church position on new situation like: human clonation or DNA manipulation.
I like to think of the magisterium as the umpire, we can all interpret a passage in different ways, that is why there so many churches and traditions among Protestants. To be Catholic is to believe as one faithfully to the holy Spirt.
This was great brother, thank you! The reason why I went Orthodox instead of Catholic is that I thought the system the Catholic Church developed over time was more conducive for creating unity rather than determining truth. I understand the Orthodox position can seem epistemologically fuzzy, but such is the nature truth as it is - our knowledge will always be conditioned.
Like ordaining female deacons with the same ordination formula as Priests?!
I would enjoy seeing GS interview Bruce Gore. Lately, I’ve been watching his series on Revelation called “The Apocalypse in Space and Time”, and he does a brilliant job looking at the history of how church movements interpreted such a vivid text, from the earliest period through the twentieth century. I think he’d be a great person to talk to about history, kingdom theology, and I’d like to hear his view on Calvinism since he’s a member of the Presbyterian Church.
It's not about subjugating your ability to interpret and understand scripture to another party but as a place that you can go to when two different interpretations clash
respectfully i don´t know how one with formal religion-studies education, gets this so wrong. it's not "always interpreting a text or an other". it's Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch receiving the faith not from the writings but by hearing. Most of Christians did not get the faith by accidentally picked up the right book, but by the living by other Christians.
Douglas Beaumont a Catholic RUclipsr and a Theologian, if I not mistaken did a video regarding this topic few months ago. I came ro know that day there are no Infallible official Commentaries of Catholic Church on Sacred Scriptures other than on few passages. We take other refference books such as Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, Denzinger etc and then see how that Passage can be applied in Light of Infallible Dogma or Doctrine. It was quite a reveal for me.
ruclips.net/video/v_ZSYu0U3nw/видео.htmlsi=Q2i7oGWOBZH3QgYO
This is the video where he goes in depth.
This needed to be said - this argument is just a way for RCs and EOs to avoid doing epistemology.
It seems that the only way to avoid the major epistemological pitfalls is to avoid placing the burden of correct interpretation on man and to place it on God, who is uniquely infallible. And we can do this by looking at the ways in which the Church historically interpreted scripture and declared doctrine universally, as even though individual bishops and hierarchs can err, the entire Church cannot fall and the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into all truth. The ecumenical councils are the primary example of this, but so are other interpretations and doctrines that were universally believed and practiced by the entire Church historically.
I'll be honest I think this raises a few major issues for the reformers. The primary one is that even though we can debate over differences in practice between east and west, liturgical use of icons in one form or another was accepted and practiced (and justified through biblical interpretation) by the universal Church, even by the separated Oriental Orthodox, prior to the reformation.
Glad you brought this up. This is one of the more misleading arguments that Catholics will make if they are trying to make a case about the wholistic understanding of biblical interpretation. That’s not the Catholic claim, and scholars like Joseph A. Fitzmyer could enlighten anyone if they thought it was the case.
More common is the cases being made using typological interpretation. Though Protestants and Catholics alike certainly agree on many typological interpretations, the ones you often hear that are used to make a case for Catholicism are not dogmatized by the magisterium.
As a member of a Protestant community whilst attending a Catholic university I encountered criticisms for my faith because I was “privately interpreting” the scriptures (referencing 2 Pet. 1:20-12) and thus my thoughts and convictions were discredited.
It is a hurtful thing to accuse someone of. Be careful how you treat other believers.
Ditto
Oh no! A call to critical thinking! ... This might be my favorite video of yours I've seen. Truly thought-provoking stuff. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I would agree that this argument as presented in this video would be problematic and I'm sure that there are many Catholics that would use it like that, but I would articulate this argument a bit different.
First of all I would agree that a magisterium is not absolutely required for a person to reach the proper interpretation of Scripture. We will always need to rely on our ability to understand/interpret to some degree in any system, God gave us rational minds and we should use them. The purpose of the magisterium however is not to interpret everything for us rather it is to settle disputes of interpretation when they arise.
I know from your other videos that you would agree that ernest, holy, and learned people can come to different interpretations of Scripture and make sound cases for their side. The magisterium is not required for interpreting all of Scripture but a singular authoritative point is required for definitively settling disputes. And when knowing which interpretation is correct could determine the fate of your soul a definitive answer because pretty important.
Without a magisterium many interpretation will be put forward and some of them will be the proper interpretation, then people will be able to investigate and study and decide what they believe to be true, and many will come to the same proper interpretation but many others will for one reason or another come to the wrong interpretation. And while people can always continue their study and correct their understanding later, many won't. The magisterium is there to look at all of the interpretations out there and determine this one is correct and that one is not or even this range of interpretations are all valid but those ones are not. The magisterium is not the sole source of interpretation rather the sole authoritative source for settling disputed interpretations. And we can have confidence in what the magisterium teaches because it was instituted by Christ and is lead and protected by the Holy Spirit.
So some people stretch this argument/the role of the magisterium past what it should be but the argument that the Protestant model has no way to definitively discern proper interpretation or settle disputes outside of one's own personal understanding is true.
There is a better argument for Councils and Tradition having authority to bind conscience against personal interpretation and personal experience. This is what happens in Acts 15. It's not about knowledge being impossible but rather proper authorities within the epistemology.
Hey Austin, another great video!
One question that I’m studying right and was wondering your thoughts:
Since we don’t see Sola Scriptura in church history does that completely discount the idea or would that fall into something like “doctrinal development”?
Thanks!
Hey!! Been there! The issue there is that scripture doesn’t even affirm sola scriptura ( it isn’t in the Bible) so it doesn’t even pass its own test. I think the concept comes from a place of real reverence of the Scripture but plenty of times in scripture, the way it is composed, and the way it is understood, show that scripture is more than just words on a page but a tradition itself.
1. Think about it, since God handed down the Word (via the Holy Spirit) and the prophets verbalized it, and scribes recorded it, the receipt of the Bible itself is a tradition that disproves the mutual exclusivity of tradition and scripture. Oral tradition is the reason you have the Scripture. I mean what came first, the church or the scriptures? The church. So, your argumentation would have us believe that the church couldn’t do anything until it was prescribed via scripture. So the book of Acts shouldn’t have taken place until Saint Luke wrote it down? Sola scriptura (the exclusion of tradition) a well intended philosophy but a logical fallacy.
2. How was the Bible put together? The priests and bishops and heads of the church (disciples of the apostles, elders, etc.) put the Bible together. This took discussion and agreement to formalize the cannon of scripture. By reading the Bible, you partake in that tradition by accepting the selected books and order thereof.
- To argue against tradition is a fallacy: You can’t know what the Bible is and how many books and which books/chapters it has just from the Bible. You have to go outside of it to assume the Bible, put together by the early church, is correct in order to then argue a sola scriptura standpoint.
3. What does the Bible say? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which you were taught, whether by WORD or our epistle”. The NIV and other newer Protestant translations swap out ‘traditions’ for ‘teachings’ to validate sola scriptura, despite the greek.
- Invalidating tradition goes against the Bible’s teaching (if you read an honest translation) and it doesn’t do justice to those writing the Bible. For example, St Paul spent ~2 years in Thessaloniki but only left them 8 little chapters…are the two years worth nothing? Even Saint John says at the end of His Gospel that not everything said is written down.
-If the apostles and the early church believed in Sola Scriptura, it would probably have been the first thing they canonized (agreed upon) in the history of the church. But that was never a thought until certain historical figures in the 17th century made it their own.
4. Can you even know how to understand the Bible without tradition? No, and that’s the Bible telling us this.
-For example, Moses gave the Law to the priests (Deuteronomy 31:9-13) and told them they must read and explain the law for the people. So the Old Testament creates a tradition of minister-guided interpretation for the old covenant.
- Saint Paul calls for the continuation of that practice: in 2 Corinthians 3:5-6 “God, Who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”. Since there is a new covenant and no need for Levitical priests, we must seek understandings from the people that the authors Paul and others invested with the grace of the Spirit have laid down. This understanding lives on in their disciples and their elect priests, the church fathers, their writings and the lineage of priests that came after them in their wisdom.
- 2 Peter 1:20-21 “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” So Saint Peter confirms the need for guided interpretation, as does Paul, in the likeness of the tradition Moses laid down as commanded by God. To contradict tradition here would be to go against the Old testament, the New testament, Peter, Paul, Moses, and God.
All love, brother! God bless your research and journey!
Your brother in Christ, from Oriental Orthodoxy 💗✝️
If that's the case then Sola Scriptura is one heck of a development lol. No seeds of it whatsoever found in the first 1500 years and then boom, full grown growth... That's not how development of doctrine works. It has to be in seed form early on for one to even claim a doctrine is a legitimate development.
My personal thoughts on this are that for sola scripture to make sense it must be a framework, not a doctrine. So all of us in determining doctrines make value judgments based on philosophical/interpretive frameworks. That's inevitable and will exist in some way prior to doctrine.
@@GospelSimplicity But by what authority does one even justify the framework? It appears that this interpretive framework has no theological and recent historical justification.
@@TheTransfiguredLife It's called usurpation of the power God gave his infallible magisterium. Prots have taken it onto themselves and pride blinds them from realizing it.
Are you in the Baltimore area? I ask because I see your Baltimore Oreo's hat. If you are in Maryland area, greeting from Laurel, Maryland.
Good job and parsing and breaking down various positions.
I am! You're just down the road :)
Honesty i'm an outsider to this issue but I honestly think Roman Catholics act like Presuppositionalist and just assume their correct instead of proving their interpretation is actuality reasonable.
Agreed RCs shouldn't argue Scripture is hopelessly obscure or that every interpretation is equally plausible, but both Protestants and RCs agree it is obscure in parts, it's just a difference in degree (RCs affirming even the "essentials" can also be unclear).
Secondly, Protestants don't interpret Scripture like every other text in life - they affirm things like spirit illumination (no one prays for understanding before reading Garfield), a canonical hermeneutic in which an authors text and intent is to be interpreted by other texts of various genres, languages, eras, authors, audiences, a supernatural vs natural/secular hermeneutic, and so on.
Thirdly, we don't have this interpretive freedom in every aspect of society. The Supreme Court isn't infallible, but it's normative, America isn't a bunch of Sola Constitutionists, nor are citizens who interpret laws according to an eventual SCs ruling normative - similarly, the magisterium serves to confirm understanding individuals may reach on their own.
Fourthly, this seems to reduce infallibility to inerrancy. Are Protestants comfortable claiming Scripture is inerrant but not infallible?
Austin with all due respect, I think if we were to adopt your position and saying that all of the scripture we are able to arbitrarily, interpret and come to the clear and concise, meaning I think that the scriptures themselves would have to support that or way by which you are able to do so, but I think what the Catholics and also the Eastern Orthodox have done is clearly showed that that’s actually not the case and that Christ does safeguard the interpretation and I don’t think that it is complicated in Saying that the arbitrary interpretation of scripture belongs to either a concealer fundamentalism or a magisterium either way involves councils and bishops and popes determining these things which the new testament really does seem to imply this in several ways rather than saying you’re able to determine what issues are primary issues secondary issues and so on I think that protestants are swimming through murky Waters as they arbitrarily try to determine what of these issues are such. And oh by the way, I don’t think it’s a bad argument.
I'm curious what you mean here by arbitrary. My point isn't that we can all arbitrarily interpret Scripture and come to the right conclusion. It's not even necessarily that Scripture is particularly easy to interpret. The point is rather that saying a magisterium is necessary to know the meaning of Scripture seems to set too high of a bar for knowledge. A magisterium helps arbitrate between viewpoints, but it doesn't determine truth. Truth exists prior to recognition by anyone, be it a person or the magisterium
@@GospelSimplicityI agree with the above poster.
Holy Scripture can not be arbitrarily interpreted, As Protestants seem to do.
There were Many who had interpreted Scripture incorrectly or distirted it to bring about Wars and Persecutions..
@@GospelSimplicity hey! I’m not going to pretend like I am half as well read as you are in regards to this topic. But for your comment on the Magesterium setting too high a bar for knowledge I would have to disagree that that is a good argument against the Magesterium or that it would even be a bad thing if that were the case. For me, it seems that knowledge of God is necessarily a high pursuit and not something that we could ever come to full understanding of. Obviously you know our human faculties can only take us so far.
It comforts me that I can assent to an authority whose sole purpose is to continually and prayerfully discern God’s will so I can then as the laity go out and fulfill my own vocation in line with what I believe is God’s teaching as the global church believes it.
This doesn’t mean at all that I neglect using reason when trying to come to terms with the Magesterium’s teachings. Definitely the opposite. The main point of my reconversion back to the faith was through reason. For me, it only took me so far though. But maybe it’s because I’m not smart enough too.
@@GospelSimplicity and to clarify further what I’ve said before, I absolutely agree that truth exists prior to recognition from any individual or institution. However, from the Catholic standpoint there is something tangibly different about the Magesterium in that we believe that it is an apostolic institution founded by Jesus Christ himself. If I were to believe that, which I do, it should necessarily mean to me that it was given certain gifts or protection from God that any individual or regular human institution does not have. e.g. “the gates of Hades will not prevail” Matthew 16:18
@@GospelSimplicity yes! Austin! Truth existing prior too or before is why I believe in a magisterium is that the scriptures thenselves support the idea and already by way of the Old Testament sets the ground work for what is being said and taught In the New Testament supports a conciliar magisterial authority being taught, that the 12 sit on the 12 seats judging the tribes of Israel is to say that there is a magesterial authority I would just add the proviso these are successive offices.
I come from a Protestant background I'm now a Catholic. I think to some degree yes you can interpret text alone on simple maters but absolutely not with the whole new testimony. His example is over simplified. Yes we can know Jesus believes in a hell, was male, mother was Mary. Other important things like real presence , baptism, did Jesus have actual brothers and sisters, is Peter the leader ?
So Catholics can't argue Protestants can't know anything, but definitely can't know a lot. Also you can't know for certain who's right JWS or the reformers by bible alone. It is a matter of theological opinion. Cleary.
Not sure what this guys missing here.
Anyone arguing about the Bible has forgotten about “the personal relationship with Christ”. A Bible scholar may or may not be a disciple of Christ. A disciple of Christ may never understand the role of the magisterium. The Church is a family that nurtures the simple and satisfies the deepest thinkers. However, deep thinkers who can’t accept Church authority will struggle and wonder without satisfaction. One person cannot assimilate all the interwoven concepts and their meaning apart from the family and without the sacraments. The Bible alone? Alone indeed.
getting lost in the weeds. the eunich saying how could he understand what he reads if he hasnt been shown? all the books in the world couldnt contain all that jesus said and did, so if youre bible only you are missing teachings. paul telling the faithful to observe what they have been taught. jesus said he would be with us til the end of the age.
Well, I’m one hundred percent guilty of making this argument. While, I think that Austin brings up a worthy consideration, I respectfully, think he misses the point.
It seems to me he’s so focused on whether we need a magisterium, and concerned about how to choose a moderate view of interpreting scripture that he forgets what scripture says of itself.
Scripture tells us that God became man, that God (the objective) entered into the world to be KNOWN, not camouflaged and obscured. From the Incarnation flows, not just the Truth, but the significance of Jesus’s teachings, his words, his church. They are to have a meaning from which His people can benefit.
We, as the recipients of that significance, that life-altering, transformative message, must first, before trying to interpret that message, before deciding whether there is or isn’t a Magisterium, recognize that we are recipients of Divine Revelation. Not a mere book or poem. But Truth from Truth itself.
Now, consider these passages-
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life
For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it
Now, consider these questions in light of the passages you read:
- Does Jesus intend for doctrines say baptism or Eucharist to be a high degree of certainty or defined Truth,
- Does God intended for us to have a high degree of certainty in what books comprise the bible or does he intend to reveal exactly which books are in the bible?
- Does God ever intend to reveal something is from heaven or only that there’s a high degree of certainty?
- Did the apostles, when they taught baptism, justification, sanctification, have the expectation that it would be quite alright if the Church would have a variety of understandings of what those doctrines were in the future?
-Is the church supposed to have one teaching on Justification in one century and another teaching in another century? Are other teachings similarly allowed to change each century?
-If someone doesn’t follow the church’s teaching are they allowed to go to another church and be considered a christian
-When an ecumenical council declares Jesus is of one substance with God, do we only have a high degree of assurance of that or is that True?
Isn’t it clear that Jesus is the Truth and wants to give people the Truth through the church he established? Therefore, let us not modernize the bible’s idea of Truth.
So when someone claims we shouldn’t think we need a Magisterium to know the truth because we don’t want to set the definition of Truth so high that it undercuts other arguments, that person might want to think about who’s setting the bar so high, is it Catholics or Jesus?
Or, perhaps, this is frankly a not a very good argument.
An honest question for my Catholic brothers. If your system is really the church established by God with all the right checks and balances, then why are your churches across the world so often in spiritual shambles? I have personally seen witch doctors formulas made by nuns sold in a Catholic church in Mexico (the bishop was aware of this), and literal pagan worship events done in multiple southwest parishes done as "cultural festivals". I have seen credible reports of utter syncretism in India, and the pope is spouting so much junk it's hard to even get started in a comment thread. Why don't I see the fruit of your supposed guardrails that protect from error? What I am missing?
Sure, anyone can interpret scripture. However, you do need a Magisterium to interpret scripture correctly in times of disagreement... which is much of the time.
Who interprets the magisterium when their is disagreement?
@bruhmingo That question shows a misunderstanding of what the Magisterium is - it itself is the interpreter, not a thing that is in need of interpretation. If your question is "Who is the final authority when there is major division and disagreement between the bishops?" Then the answer is the Pope.
@@bruhmingo the magisterium can iteratively clarify meaning, it's a living authority. A static text cannot. And of course the magisterium often does not need to clarify itself - RCs and non-RCs alike have no problem identifying countless RC dogmas on positions Protestantism has had intractable division on for centuries.
I think the issue is not we can’t see the truth through Scripture
But the problem is you need a magisterial authority to settle definitively disputes on interpretations to avoid disunity
Protestantism just doesn’t that function to settle disputes
Why does Protestant churches split apart? Isn't it on differences of biblical interpretations? Is this what Jesus had set-up - who you guys can't agree on my teachings, just form a new church?
The magisterium is to settle important arguments of moral and biblical interpretations in a definitive matter and not for doing bible interpretation for everyone. In its 2000 years of history, the magisterium had only dogmatically defined a handful of biblical passages. The magisterium is there for setting up guard rails of one personal interpretations and act as a referee.
Is the Magisterium necessary to interpret the Bible? Short answer: Yes. As to why.....
By the authority given Her and guided by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church canonized what books/writings that would make up what we know today as the Bible. Under Pope Damasus, the Council of Rome in 382 was convened which promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
No other Christian/Protestant denomination can make such a claim that they were the ones responsible for determining what the Bible canon should be --- only the Catholic Church can and still does to this day. And it is because of the authority given Her from Christ Himself under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, that the Catholic Church canonized the Bible, it follows that She alone --- the Magisterium --- can rightly and properly interpret and teach said Scripture.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the Catholic position I hear Catholics taking on interpretation, not to say some people haven’t made the argument you’re stating.
It doesn’t have to be one extreme or another. Most interpretations are pretty straightforward from the gospels, love your neighbor, etc… but when it comes down to it sometimes there are disputes and differing interpretations. This is why the Counsel of Jerusalem was called in Acts 15, so that the magisterium could teach infallibly and the Christians at the time could proceed with true doctrine.
If that’s the paradigm in the Bible, why would we deviate from that today let alone ever? Peter himself even states that Paul can be difficult to understand at some times and then some people can twist those verses unto their own destruction.
Was Peter wrong when he said that about Paul’s writings? Were the apostles and bishops wrong to call a counsel in Acts 15?
St. Chrysostom argued that we should be a man and use our common sense. He also argued that Scripture was simple and true.
I am not Roman Catholic, yet I do disagree with your premise (s). First, just within the Protestant world, the interpretation of seems to be very, very varied. Are Lutheran right on Holy Communion or are SBC pastors correct? This can go across the spectrum of issues. Who is right? Can you use the text alone and are able to say one believe on Holy Communion can be proven correct. The answer is no, that cant be done. I absolutely believe in the concept of Saints or holy men and woman, who do to their unique closeness to God can understand the text more perfectly and teach the rest of us about it.
If you and I have a discussion on a topic and afterwards I send you an email of what we discussed. You will fully understand that email. If you or I send that email to a friend they will have a good understanding of what we discussed (assuming I wrote it well). They however, will not have a full understanding, especially if there are nuances in our discussion. However, if you or I talk to our friend about the email then they will come much closer to a full understanding of what was discussed. This is my way of understanding the role of the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.
The magisterium is also important for distinguishing between natural law and moral law and updating accordingly. The Bible is pretty clear woman MUST wear head coverings. There’s no other interpretation, but most Protestants do not wear head coverings, not because there is some other scriptural teaching (despite always championing the Bible alone), but instead by applying some (mostly culturally influenced) viewpoint outside of the Bible.
Head coverings are respectful, but not an absolute necessity as it can be distinguished as a moral law of the time which the church has the authority to update. (Like in council of Jerusalem)
As an Orthodox Christian here I will offer our position. Keep in mind that, in the modern day, what I am about to say is not a popular thing among the laity (at least here in the west). So here goes. Wearing a head covering is not optional. It is the universal tradition of the Church and is still required in many traditionally Orthodox countries. Most monasteries also require that one dress according to the canonical and traditional requirements of the faithful while on the monastery grounds. This means men dress in long sleeves and pants and women in dresses/skirts and head coverings. However, having said that, economia is a very important aspect of the Orthodox way of life. The traditions and canons of the Church are adjusted by the clergy according to the needs of the faithful for their salvation. So, one may relax the requirement to wear a head covering because it is perhaps too burdensome in our modern culture, and may lead to someone leaving Church instead of bringing them closer to God. Most of us would give up on our salvation if we were held to the standards of the early church.
Austin, the issue here is that when interpreting other historical documents, the conclusions drawn do not equate to "what God said." When Protestant's interpret something, are they not trying to get at what God meant? If so, when they do so, do they also not make a truth claim that puts God on the hook for their personal interpretation?
That is just not the Catholic position. All the magesterium does is insist that any interpretation of scripture is consistent with history, tradition and linguistics. Protestants just pick up any Bible in any translation and mutilate it to say anything they wish. That’s the whole point of evangelical Christianity. They are treating it like magic. This is so frustrating, you know all of this. Give me one distinctly Protestant position where they haven’t come to the conclusion first and then twisted scripture to make it work. This is not so confusing, you would just laugh at someone treating any other written work in this way. It’s preposterous
Excellent Discussion. First time I have heard this approach to authority (Magisterium)and the interpretation of scriptures. Although I believe we should never unite with Catholics. We have to put guardrails around the True Gospel and the Christ centered theology of Salvation. I have many Catholic friends and family members who are Christians.
> We must never unite with Catholics
That's not very Christ like of you brother.
It's quite simple I think, there is only one intended way to interpret Scripture which is how God wanted it to be interpreted and no other way. So the only way to ensure that is that Jesus Himself or someone else authorized by Him does this.
Any other way, means it's no longer God the authority to interpret Bible, but ourselves to fit what we want things to be as we like. It's one reason why so many denominations exists and all claim to be valid and true.
Agreed infallibility is not needed to get knowledge, but it is to ensure you get correct knowledge and when this relates to moral and faith, I would say it's a big deal, bc mistakes then can have eternal consequences.
It makes sense bc if there is no truth then no way to know if JW or Mormons or protestants are better off one another, given there is nothing to compare each other to, so it makes sense and is needed.
I would not say this is a bad argument. It just requires one more premise. That is that on many important issues there is real, sincere disagreement about what the scriptures say. You are picking stupid examples where the disagreement is trivial. It is based on ignorance or perhaps deceit. Those are hard issues to deal with yet they do not seem like show stoppers. A non-infallible magisterium could suffice because can provide honest, informed opinion. Not as easy to do as it sounds but likely possible. Yet many disagreements among protestants are not based on ignorance or deceit. They are based on different schools of theological opinion. They have persisted for a long time and sincere, intelligent Christians belong to each school. That is when you are truly stuck as a Protestant.
You don't need a sacramental magisterium to interpret the Bible. You just need a sacramental magisterium for that interpretation to be known, in principle, as dogmatic rather than as mere human theological opinion. And a religion that cannot distinguish, in principle, divinely revealed truth from mere human theological opinion [cannot] be the true religion. This video misses the mark and misunderstands the Catholic critique of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
"A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given."
-St. Newman
how can you be made a disciple if you have no teacher?
I’m Orthodox and have no dog in this fight.
But to me if the Church cannot “make a disciple” by true teachings, then Christ lied.
And it seems to me that the Protestant does not believe his rabbi will infallibly make him a disciple because his rabbi can teach him false teachings.
Imagine going to Christ to learn and being unconvinced of his ability to make you a disciple infallibly.
And if you say He is God. Then the Holy Spirit is no less God and will infallibly make you a disciple.
It seems to me that sola scriptura denies the great commission by implication.
They don’t just have the Bible. They also have Apostolic tradition
We know satan twists scripture to tempt Jesus, why would he not do the same to us. as the Eunuch says "If someone does not explain to me how will I know?" We need good teachers in order to understand, and if you have not learned a subject, then how will you know the best teacher? The answer is to look at the teachers and their pedigree
I think the more fundamental problem here is that the Magisterium was given to us not just when the New Testament was written but even before that. If you're a Christian the Church predates the complete canon of scripture and we wouldn't even know what scripture is without the Church's arbitration. If you reject the Magisterium then you're essentially going all-in on complete perspecuity of scripture, which is not evident, and even Calvin's argument in his christian principles document was that scripture breathes all the truth that's needed right off the page to the reader, which is unfalsifiable. I truly don't know how we can avoid Epistemic Limbo if all we are left with is our broken minds after the Fall. Quid est veritas?
I think I see certain blind spots and misdirections perhaps in Austin's argument.
Take The US Constitution.
Is it totally unintelligible without some magisterial authority interpreting it? No.
No one ever said that.
There are areas beyond argument. HOWEVER.
Neither can we say that we do not need a Supreme Court duly authorized and deputized by the authors of the Constitution to be court of last resort if there is disagreement.
Indeed it is absolutely obvious that we need a Supreme Court. Indeed, it is one of the legs of the American political system. Legislature, executive and judiciary. None of those three can be dispensed with.
The Supreme Court exists because different times and places and circumstances all exert forces that shape our human understanding of text. Our understanding does not exist in a vacuum.
Protestants say that the scriptures are the bar upon which all authorities must be inferior to: a Constitution.
Unfortunately Protestant DO NOT believe that Author of the scriptures set up a Supreme Court to deal with issues that arise.
As such, each denomination or individual is the defacto Supreme Court.
They have a Constitution but no Supreme Court.
They would not dare arrogate to themselves the authority to be the interpreter of the US Constitition but they have no problem being that for the scriptures.
Have you ever made a video engaging with John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine? It's a masterpiece and absolutely required reading for this topic.